August 16, 2008

Says Curt Marvis, president of digital media at Lionsgate Entertainment, who is trying to figure out how to relate to YouTube and not "condone people taking our intellectual property and using it without our permission."

"For the most part, people who are uploading videos are fans of our movies. They’re not trying to be evil pirates, and they’re not trying to get revenue from it."

And it's usually free advertising of the product. The key is to prevent people from collecting ad revenue from the videos they post, and the linked article explains how the copyright owner can — instead of demanding that YouTube take down a video — "claim" it, run and ad, and collect ad revenue. 90% of the owners choose this option.

This sounds good, but I think it may lead to disabling embedding, which hurts us bloggers — an issue that Jac discusses at the end of this post. You know, we bloggers are usually promoting the product too. We're fans engaging with your product.

But Daryl, once the company is taking control of the situation and decides it wants the stuff up -- to promote it and encourage "fan engagement" -- it could decide that it also wants to allow embedding. It could be seen as in the owner's self-interest.

No, that's *my* viewpoint. Not 'working out all that well' is due to others disrespecting copyright (the law), not any model issues. The owner of the work has the legal right to determine mode of distribution. Do you disagree?

lem --

Be that as it may, the copyright owner is -- well -- the owner of the copyright and can exercise any distributorship they see fit, other's wishes notwithstanding.